The Date is Set.

[EFLImpudence]

Stripping away your emotive comment,

I don't know which way you are taking the 'emotiveness' but is it not allowed to be emotive now?
You are rather selective in your criticisms, aren't you?

we're left with; "well yes"

Is that because I disagreed with you?

But in such an important, historic vote, wouldn't you expect at least a sizable majority to determine the future of the country.

I've already said; that's not how it's done.

Strikes lasting a few days/ weeks are hardly life changing for the country for the forthcoming decades.

Why then did you bring them into the discussion?

This vote will be just that kind of life changing decision.

So was the original referendum. Was that first past the post?
I know it was 67% yes with 65% turnout so not an absolute majority. Good enough?

But, it is what it is, and I accept that. I just think it's insufficient. But I will work with the decision.

If that's how it is done, you will have to.


Cameron would hardly dare to now introduce a 60% (or whatever) required to leave, would he?.

 

[Himaginn]

Stripping away your emotive comment,

I don't know which way you are taking the 'emotiveness' but is it not allowed to be emotive now?

Yes, of course. As I've said a few times now, it's more of an emotive issue than a rationale issue.

You are rather selective in your criticisms, aren't you?

as are you in your selection of responses.

we're left with; "well yes"

Is that because I disagreed with you?

No. Because I agreed with you!

But in such an important, historic vote, wouldn't you expect at least a sizable majority to determine the future of the country.

I've already said; that's not how it's done.

And I agreed and accepted that.

Strikes lasting a few days/ weeks are hardly life changing for the country for the forthcoming decades.

Why then did you bring them into the discussion?

It was an analogy.

This vote will be just that kind of life changing decision.

So was the original referendum. Was that first past the post?
I know it was 67% yes with 65% turnout so not an absolute majority. Good enough?

It was good enough then and it would be more then acceptable now. But a 50.5%/49.5% with a 65% turnout is a very different kettle of fish, which was my original comment.

But, it is what it is, and I accept that. I just think it's insufficient. But I will work with the decision.

If that's how it is done, you will have to.

I have already recognised that. Are you being argumentative just for the sake of it?

Cameron would hardly dare to now introduce a 60% (or whatever) required to leave, would he?.

I also recognised that!
You do appear to be being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You do appear to be being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[jockscott]

But a 50.5%/49.5% with a 65% turnout is a very different kettle of fish, which was my original comment
.

But that's politics for you. Those who choose to abstain from voting, have to go with the majority. No good saying after, "Well if I'd bothered to vote, I'd have voted to stay in/out." There could well be a small turnout on the 23rd of June,, for all we know, it's that important a vote, there might be a 99% turnout. My wife hasn't voted for many years, but she's already said she'll be the first in the queue at the polling station that day.
Whether there's a small or large turnout, it's still the same kettle of fish.

 

[JohnD]

Places (unlike the UK) where citizens have the right to propose and vote on changes to the constitution often have a bar, greater than a simple majority, to change the status quo.

Sometimes the rules treat people who don't vote (or have died) as if they had voted one way or another, but this is devious and dishonest, and only done by governments who want things to go a particular way, for example if they are anti-union.

For example a dishonest government might say:

• At least 50% of citizens entitled to vote must do so for referenda on leaving the EU (or the UK) to be valid.
• At least 40% of those eligible to vote must back leaving the EU (or the UK)

However it would be obvious that this was a ploy to try to reduce the chance of leaving the EU (or the UK).

 

[Himaginn]

I agree with you Jock, (and JohnD) it is what it is.
My point and the analogy of say, strikes and other industrial disputes, there are certain % majorities required and minimum turnouts required because the result is a decision for a serious course of actions.
The possibility of a Brexit is of a much more important issue, yet there is no certain % majority or % of turnout required. It could be a miniscule majority of a low turnout for a far more serious course of action.
Edit: Those minimum regulations that you've quoted are current for industrial action.

 

[JohnD]

Edit: Those minimum regulations that you've quoted are current for industrial action.

Yes, they are, and they were obviously intended to reduce the ability of members to follow the normal British rules for democracy.

If we're going to change the way democracy works, we should do it for everything. For example, maybe to vote out the current government, we should need a 60% vote for change. Or to increase pension age. Or to go to war with Iraq.

 

[Himaginn]

Edit: Those minimum regulations that you've quoted are current for industrial action.

Yes, they are, and they were obviously intended to reduce the ability of members to follow the normal British rules for democracy.

Or it could be argued that they were to prevent serious courses of action determined by a minority of people.

 

[Himaginn]

I accept your point, John about potential changes to every vote on all issues.
But the rules applying now, in industrial disputes, are to prevent serious courses of action caused by a low turnout and a pitiful majority of that turnout.

If the turnout is greater than 50% then the referendum is valid. Less than 50% and it wasn't important anyway.
I'm not suggesting that we accept the 40% rule, but I would have thought that some minimum majority ought to be included to avoid extremely close calls, or claims of no clear majority, etc
For instance, a majority of say at least 25% of those entitled to vote would indicate a greater than 50% majority if it was extrapolated.

 

[JohnD]

The Welsh Assembly vote was 51%/49%

If you change the rules in order to tip the balance towards your own favoured outcome, you are distorting the democratic process for your own ends.

 

[Himaginn]

I don't know which vote you're referring to, but an average turnout is as low as 42% I believe.
But a 51/49 vote is a clear majority.
A 50.01/49.99 can hardly be considered a clear majority.

Apart from that, changing the rules as I suggested can't be considered as creating a favorable outcome. It's creating conditions for a clear majority decision, not a decision which is actually a minority.

The current FPTP system allows for decisions by a minority and it is considered unfair.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But the rules applying now, in industrial disputes, are to prevent serious courses of action caused by a low turnout and a pitiful majority of that turnout.

No. They are an attempt to avoid results not favoured by the Conservative Government.

Apart from that, changing the rules as I suggested can't be considered as creating a favorable outcome.

Yes it can and definitely is.
If the Government thinks 60% of the people favour exit then stipulating a required 65% will ensure the result they want.

It's creating conditions for a clear majority decision, not a decision which is actually a minority.

Then the same must apply to decisions the Government does want and to all other voting.

The current FPTP system allows for decisions by a minority and it is considered unfair.

Not by MPs for their own election.


Taking it to an extreme, say a 75% (or 90%) vote was required before anything could change then nothing would change.

They can't - or mustn't - be allowed to have it both ways depending on what they want the result to be.

 

[Himaginn]

But the rules applying now, in industrial disputes, are to prevent serious courses of action caused by a low turnout and a pitiful majority of that turnout.

No. They are an attempt to avoid results not favoured by the Conservative Government.

I accept that, with regard to industrial disputes. The odds are heavily in the governments favour. I've never disputed it.

Apart from that, changing the rules as I suggested can't be considered as creating a favorable outcome.

Yes it can and definitely is.
If the Government thinks 60% of the people favour exit then stipulating a required 65% will ensure the result they want.

That wasn't what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is:

If the turnout is greater than 50% then the referendum is valid. Less than 50% and it wasn't important anyway.
I'm not suggesting that we accept the 40% rule, but I would have thought that some minimum majority ought to be included to avoid extremely close calls, or claims of no clear majority, etc
For instance, a majority of say at least 25% of those entitled to vote would indicate a greater than 50% majority if it was extrapolated.

It's creating conditions for a clear majority decision, not a decision which is actually a minority.

Then the same must apply to decisions the Government does want and to all other voting.

Why not?

The current FPTP system allows for decisions by a minority and it is considered unfair.

Not by MPs for their own election.

That's too general an opinion. Amongst some MPs and potential MPs they wanted a different system. Although the recent referendum on Alternative voting system was only a 42% turnout. It was a 68% vote for FPTP. Although there was some dissatisfaction with the alternatives on offer. Thus the motion was defeated by about 28% of the electorate. It was only supported by 12% as well.

Taking it to an extreme, say a 75% (or 90%) vote was required before anything could change then nothing would change.

No-one was suggesting any extremes such as you've illustrated.

They can't - or mustn't - be allowed to have it both ways depending on what they want the result to be.

The suggestion that I made (50% minimum turnout and 25% minimum majority of those eligible to vote) favours no-one but negates the possibility of a decision by a minority

 

[jockscott]

Even if we have a 50% turnout by the electorate on 23rd June, whichever way it goes, you just know the media (and politicians) will have a field day telling us that half the people of Britain are now having to abide by the decision of only half of them. If it was a 45% turnout , then yopu know they're going to say we're bound by a minority decision.. This is too important a referendum for people to become complacent. People who don't vote , should have no right to comment on the end result.

 

[Himaginn]

I agree, Jock, it is what it is, and we'll accept it as it is.
I'm just surprised that some kind of requirement for turnout and/or majority of electorate wasn't determined previously. As I said in my opening gambit which was an unformulated thought at that time:

I would have thought that the rules for the percentage of an acceptable majority would have been laid down, but there aren't any. So a .001% majority could be sufficient.